Saudi oil reserves were recently audited by 2 of the most respected names in the field. The audits confirmed the Saudi reserve numbers.

The first independent audit of Saudi Aramco's oil reserves has confirmed the state oil company's own figures. "The independent audit produced no surprises," a source familiar with the situation said on Friday. "Aramco's reserves have always been reported internally in line with international practice."

Aramco had asked two U.S. oil reserve auditing specialists to review its deposits. These are Gaffney, Cline and Associates, part of Baker Hughes (BHI.N) and Dallas-based DeGolyer and MacNaughton. DeGolyer and MacNaughton completed its audit last year.

Senior oil industry figures have welcomed the Aramco IPO for casting more light on Saudi Arabia's oil reserves. The head of Russian oil company Rosneft (ROSN.MM) Igor Sechin said last year the Aramco listing would give transparency over reserves data.

rockdoc123 wrote:The auditing firm is not a "Brit accounting company" but rather Gaffney Cline and Associates who have been one of the main players globally in terms of oil and gas reserve auditing. Their two main offices are in London and Houston but they have regional offices all over the place.

This adds considerable legitimacy to the reserve audit. If the Saudis wanted to they could have used a Middle Eastern unknown firm and then listed on one of the ME exchanges.

DeGolyer and MacNaughton is one of the most respected names in the upstream segment of the oil and gas industry, providing reserves consulting services, resources evaluations, field studies, reservoir simulation studies, and many other services for energy companies worldwide.

rockdoc123 wrote:Having worked with GCA[Gaffney Cline and Associates] a number of times my guess is they would not agree to conduct the audit unless they were given all the appropriate data. This would mean production information, logs, seismic maps etc. This is pretty easy for Aramco to do given they have it all built into finite element models. The audits that GCA have done I am familiar with involved a full rework of the information, not just checking numbers and signing off. Although Sarbanes Oxley applies only to US companies or companies traded on US stock exchanges (likewise instrument 51-101 in Canada) GCA behaves as if it applies everywhere, hence you can see some pretty heated arguments between the auditor and the operator even when the company is reporting somewhere else. Bottom line is GCA bases it's success on reputation, they aren't going to take on a project that could in anyway jeopardize that... all of the audit firms became legally responsible for their reports. If they came up with a number that they were coercised into by the operator then the SEC would go after both the company in question as well as the operator. My experience (I had the role of internal reserve auditor for awhile) is that after SOX the battles became more about making sure the auditor wasn't overly pessimistic when it came to Probable reserves.

pstarr wrote:Kub, the $50 billion upgrade bought the Saudi's a web of laterals skimming the remaining oil sheen . . . off a massive pool of H2O. And you want to buy in? (eyes wide shut)

Eyes wide shut eh pstarr? Been doing alot of investing in high water cut wells?

ROCKMAN wrote:In reality buying high water cut oil production is one of the safest investments out there...especially after an oil price crash. Remember this isn't a theoretical claim: the Rockman has been doing this off and on for 4 decades and has analyzed hundreds of such projects. Not only do such reservoirs have some of the slowest decline rates out there they are the most stable and thus easiest to ACCURATELY predict future production volumes.

rockdoc123 wrote:the amount of work ARAMCO has done towards understanding reservoir dynamics eclipses anything I've ever seen including that by two of the multinationals. Everything you can imagine is input into their finite element model including the laboratory information they have regarding switching wettability through time. I can't imagine a less riskier prediction.

hvacman et al - Forget about all the bullsh*t being tossed around about those "200 million barrels". Let's just focus on what BP actually said in its press release:

"BP today announced a major breakthrough in seismic imaging that has identified more than 200 million barrels of additional resources at BP’s Atlantis field in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico."

So pay attention: they did not say they found "200 million barrels of oil RESERVES in place". They did not say they found 200 million barrels of oil of RECOVERABLE RESERVES. They did not say they found 200 million barrels of P95 oil RESERVES... recoverable or in place. They didn't even say the found 200 million barrels of technically recoverable oil.

They clearly say they have "identified more than 200 million barrels of additional resources..."

So let's see how Schumberger defines "resource" in its online website: hmm...it has do definition.

Well, let's check wiki: "...unlike oil resources, which include all oil that can be technically recovered at any price." Hmm, still not very satisfying.

I know: let's see how BP itself describes those 200 million barrels of oil resources in the disclaimer they always post at the end of such press releases:

"This press release contains references to non-proved resources and production outlooks based on non-proved resources that the SEC's rules prohibit us from including in our filings with the SEC. U.S. investors are urged to consider closely the disclosures in our Form 20-F, SEC File No. 001-06262. This form is available on our website at http://www.bp.com.

There, that should make it easier for everyone to view the significance of this new information.

As a publically traded company when BP uses the resource vernacular they are likely sticking to the definition supplied by SPE and COGEH.Essentially the resource/reserve pyramid has at it's bottom Resources, differentiated from Reserves by the fact at the point the determination is made the hydrocarbons are not economic to extract. Those Resources are divided into two additional categories....Contingent Resource and Potential Resource. Contingent Resource is those uneconomic hydrocarbons that have already been proven by the drill bit, Potential Resource refers to those hydrocarbons for which there is good certainty of their presence but where they has yet to be drilling. Given Atlantis has been proven by the drillbit I suspect these additional resources fit into the category of contingent resource.

Ah...the key words in the full BP press release "conveniently" left out by the author of the originally-cited article about the "game changer".

Thanks RMan and Rdoc- as usual, you guys skip the hoopla and get right to the nitty-gritty. You are truly contingent resources* in this forum.

*Disclaimer - At PO.com, "resources" are sources of information of proven experience-earned knowledge and of which there is good certainty of its presence, in that they have been frequently drilled for information...though they are uneconomic, in that their participation usually does not increase the economic value of peakoil.com website by one bitcoin.